Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "CNN reports that more than 200 bottlenose dolphins remain penned in a cove by Japanese fishermen, many of them stressed and bloodied from their attempts to escape before fishermen start to slaughter them for meat. Until now, the fishermen have focused on selecting dolphins to be sold into captivity at marine parks and aquariums in Japan and overseas as twenty-five dolphins, including a rare albino calf, were taken on Saturday 'to a lifetime of imprisonment,' and another 12 on Sunday. 'Many of the 200+ Bottlenose dolphins who are in still the cove are visibly bloody & injured from their attempts to escape the killers,' one update says. Although the hunting of dolphins is widely condemned in the west, Japanese defend the practice as a local custom — and say it is no different to the slaughter of other animals for meat. The Wakayama Prefecture, where Taiji is located condemns the criticism as biased and unfair to the fishermen. 'Taiji dolphin fishermen are just conducting a legal fishing activity in their traditional way in full accordance with regulations and rules under the supervision of both the national and the prefectural governments. Therefore, we believe there are no reasons to criticize the Taiji dolphin fishery.' Meanwhile the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society describes how about 40 to 60 local fishermen work with nets to divide up the pod, whose initial numbers were estimated by the group at more than 250. 'They tighten up the nets to bring each sub-group together then the skiffs push them toward the tarps. Under the tarps in the shallows is where the trainers work with the killers to select the "prettiest" dolphins which will sell and make the best pay day for the hunters,' the group says. The fishermen will 'kill the "undesirable" dolphins (those with nicks and scars) under the tarps to hide from our cameras when that time comes.'"

I don't condone this behaviour, but the logic behind killing the dolphins compared to killing other animals is sound. Personally, I am against the killing of any animal, but it certainly is hypocrisy if the people complaining participate or contribute in any way to the slaughter of any other animals. Creating arbitrary lines is ridiculous. You either support animal murder or you oppose it.

Uh, creating lines based on a standard of intelligence is not arbitrary at all. And nobody "supports" animal "murder" (you may want to look up the definition of that word). They tolerate it as a means toward living a convenient life. I tolerate this practice as well, but I do not tolerate killing dolphins because there is significant research to suggest that they either possess an intelligence similar to ours or are approaching it. That is something that, to my knowledge, does not exist with any other species.

It's tempting to think that. But the top 3 animals for intelligence after man are the dolphin, the chimp and the pig, with the exact order open to debate. Yet people are quite happy to kill and eat pigs.

Cats and dogs are much lower on the intelligence scale, but most cultures find it unacceptable to kill them for sport or food.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely against killing dolphins too.

But the list of what animals we will kill for what purposes is somewhat arbitrary.

Some zoo keeper once said something like, "give a chimp a screwdriver and it will use it for everything but its intended purpose. Give a Gorilla a screwdriver and first he'll show fear, then try to eat it. An Orangutan will show disinterest, hide the screwdriver and later when no one is looking, disassemble his cage"

Actually, I've seen research that indicates the extreme intelligence attributed to dolphins is largely myth based on brain size. And most of the larger dolphin brain is simply focuses on their echolocation. The speed of sound is much greater underwater, and processing all that information requires much more brain devoted to it than our own sense of hearing.

In most intelligence tests dealing with items such as problem solving and the like, dolphins are not only far below humans, but below many animals people wouldn't think of, such as several species of birds, and I believe ferrets. But my memory as to the exact rankings is a little fuzzy.

And most of the larger dolphin brain is simply focuses on their echolocation.

That doesn't sound right to me, some bats have a brain smaller than a pea and yet they can perform similar echolocation feats as the big brained Dolphin.
Relative brain size is normally associated with social complexity and Dolphins are socially complex animals.

Also any ranking of intelligence depends on how you define "intelligent", problem solving alone is too limited since an Octopus can work out how to open a screw top lid much faster than any other animal. You simply can't compare such alien intelli

With the bats, don't forget that the speed of sound is four times greater in water than in air. I'm not expert, and only reporting what I read, but the claim was that handling this increased data resulting from the effect required a significantly enlarged and specialized section of the brain. And yes, it largely does come down to how you define intelligence how the rankings go.

Still, no matter what metric you use, I think you'll be surprised by how many animals not thought of as especially intelligent in th

If someone were to kill you for food, even if they were genuinely starving, you can bet that person would be considered a murderer, despite the fact that you are an animal like any other.

That's probably not true. Recent examples are scarce, but historical examples show us that those people would be thought of as having gone crazy. There's no mens rea for murder in your example. In most if not all true 'kill or be killed' situations, juries acquit.

Otherwise, your standard is too low to be useful. You're killing millions of living right this very second just through metabolic practices. Is not 'kingdom' just as 'arbitrary' as 'intelligent'? Your world view would allow for the murder of

Murder is when an animal kills another animal in its own pack\herd\group. Killing food has never been considered murder in most cultures. Killing foods is a positive outcome for most packs of animals. Killing members of the pack can have a negitive outcome for the group. The ethics are based on the impact on the group.

Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer. They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think. They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel pain. And even if they did, they have no thoughts, so the pain would mean nothing. They have no fear, panic, or sadness. They live, but they live without consciousness. So you can not torture a plant or make it suffer.

On the animal spectrum, not all animals are the same since some animals have small brains and simple thoughts and other animals have complex brains and complex thoughts. At the top of the animal spectrum you have humans with the most complex brains and abstract thoughts and intense sensations of fear. Humans have a high capacity to suffer. On the other end of the spectrum you have animals like spiders with comparatively simple nervous systems and simple thoughts. They have a much smaller capacity to suffer. That’s why it would feel more painful to watch someone rip the legs off a spider than watch someone rip the legs off a cat or horse or chimpanzee. So there’s a spectrum of animals ordered by how self-aware they are and how complex their thinking is: spiders, fish, chickens, ravens, octopus, cats, dogs, pigs, cows, horses, dolphins, gorillas, chimpanzees, humans... roughly something like that. Everyone draws a line on the spectrum, whether consciously or unconsciously, what they are comfortable with. Some people are fine eating fish and chicken, but not pigs and cows. Other people are fine eating pigs and cows, but not chimpanzees, who are almost human. Some people are even fine eating chimpanzees and feel no empathy when they shout and panic. Almost everyone at least agrees that it’s not ok to eat humans. But some people even do that. A vegetarian draws the line at it being not ok to eat any animal.

Some people argue that oysters, despite being animals, are vegetarian. They aren’t, by definition of the word vegetarian, but it is true that the argument for plants applies to oysters. Oysters do not have a central nervous system, no consciousness, and no thoughts. So they can not suffer.

Not all vegetarians are vegetarian for the same reasons. Some people have a spiritual belief that all life is sacred and equal, but that’s not my belief and not something that’s supported by any facts I’ve seen. What I outlined above, though, is simple fact and simple reasoning.

Everyone draws a line on the spectrum, whether consciously or unconsciously, what they are comfortable with. Some people are fine eating fish and chicken, but not pigs and cows.

I'm here -- I chose to draw that line at only eating animals not having a neo-cortex, although I do give octopi honorary mammal status. It's somewhat arbitrary of course, but eating other mammals feels sort of broadly cannibalistic.

I've been eating this way for about nine or ten years and I don't miss anything about eating mammals.

While I mostly agree with you, please consider being more open about some concepts, like consciousness. You simply assume that plants are unconscious, because "they have no nervous system". Actually they have, although one very dissimilar to our own [1]. How can you affirm that their subjective interpretation of bodily damage is not similar to e.g. a fish's one?

And even if they did, they have no thoughts, so the pain would mean nothing.

Yes. Thoughts have "meaning" to us human beings. We have no idea what meaning (if any) thoughts have for animals. And we have no idea of a plant's experience, and whether there is anything which has any "meaning". In this completely anthrocentric view - why is "meaning" of thought, more important than "meaninglessness" of plants? In fact, human suffering and thought, and meaning, when viewed in certain contexts, can shrink to almost nothing. Imagine stubbing your toe. Now imagine the meaning of that thought, 1,000,000 years from now. Not so much meaning to that, is there?

They have no fear, panic, or sadness. They live, but they live without consciousness.

Why is a plant's existence any less meaningful than an animals? Why does consciousness preclude suffering?

There is an argument about meat-eaters, that since they eat cows and pigs, but not dogs or cats, that this is really an argument of "survival of the cutest". Dogs and cats are the most human-like, and they are cute, so we don't eat them. But they are not human, so it's really no different if we ate dogs or cats. (some cultures eat dogs, of course). But if we can extend our humanity to dogs and cats because they "feel pain" or "have conscious thought" - then we can really extend that to most of the mammals, and many higher animals. And if dogs and cats have thoughts and feelings (though, clearly they're different from human thoughts and feelings) - why would we place value on those, and not the thoughts and feelings of cows and pigs - which are clearly even more different. And if we can conceive of an existence of cows and pigs being sacred - then why is not all life (even plant life) sacred? Where do you draw the line, and why do you draw one? What is "complex" enough to merit not being eaten? It's either a biological argument, or it's an argument of empathy. And even the biological argument is empathic. We draw our lines of distinction at the classification boundary between the plant and animal kingdom?

If a thought has no meaning to us, as humans, then it is hard to develop any sympathy for that thought. Since sympathy is essentially the basis for treating intelligent animals "humanely," it is pretty hard to swallow that we should give the same deference to seaweed as chimps.

But, you can argue for any mode of thought. Perhaps oxygen molecules don't like being inhaled, and we should just let ourselves die from suffocation. It's kind of silly to approach life that way, though. A better approach might be to preserve that which we think is worth being preserved. There isn't really any way to do that other than a selfish point of view (from the point of the species, the region, or the individual). If there is no value in saving the life of all seaweed, then we don't do it. If there is a value in keeping dolphins alive, then we do it.

I was just saying, the idea of preserving species based on our idea of what they think or feel doesn't really allow us to do the same for plants. Plants are so different from humans that we are unlikely to ever have much sympathy or empathy for their "thoughts" or "feelings," which from the human perspective don't really even exist.

I was just saying, the idea of preserving species based on our idea of what they think or feel doesn't really allow us to do the same for plants. Plants are so different from humans that we are unlikely to ever have much sympathy or empathy for their "thoughts" or "feelings," which from the human perspective don't really even exist.

Please realize that your view is only your own personal experience, in this instance. You cannot just state this as if it were an objective argument. My personal experience with tending plants, and those of many gardeners I know, says otherwise.

I did a lot of gardening when I was younger, and I'm gradually getting back into it. I have, over the years, also had a large supply of houseplants -- usually given to me, rather than something I sought out.

An interesting line of thought. By that reasoning you'd expect a venn diagram of vegetarians and abortion proponents to be two separate circles in all but the earliest term abortions. Based strictly on the average political affiliation of the two groups though, I doubt this would be the case.

Um, Veganism is about minimizing cruelty and suffering. Vegetarianism is just a form of diet. I know plenty of vegetarian with leather handbags and leather upholstered car interiors.

I do eat meat but I am a bit uncomfortable with the whole classifying living things into how complex they are according to human definitions. It goes without saying, life is essential to every living being regardless of their CNS complexity. Just because something doesn't feel what humans perceive to "pain" does not mean that they do not feel "pain." Everyday we learn something new about our environment and our fellow Earth cohabitants. The old thinking that crustaceans do not feel pain is being dispelled by new research data.

Not entirely. If you were to milk a Jersey cow that happily lives in a field and drink that milk, you're not a vegan but you're also not encouraging pain and suffering. Ditto frying up some eggs laid by chickens clucking around in your barn. Again, not vegan but not encouraging cruelty and suffering. Now granted there are horrible dairy and chicken farms that are immensely cruel, but it's not difficult to eat "cruelty free" eggs and dairy, it's just m

No, it's not. Every vegetarian I know would not, for example, eat a deer that had been hit by a car, or had died of some other cause. The deer is already dead, there is no more suffering by eating it, but most vegetarians would not eat it.

Plant life does not factor into it because they can not suffer. They can’t suffer because they have no nervous system with which to think. They also have no physical mechanisms with which to feel p

Their intelligence, like all intelligence, is a complex matter, but basically, they are not as smart as their reputation suggests; although, stating that they are as smart (dumb) as chickens also overstates things.

Their intelligence, like all intelligence, is a complex matter, but basically, they are not as smart as their reputation suggests; although, stating that they are as smart (dumb) as chickens also overstates things.

Bender: Who wants dolphin?Leela: Dolphin? But dolphins are intelligent.Bender: Not this one. He blew all his money on instant lottery tickets.Fry: OK.Leela: Oh, OK.Amy: That's different.Farnsworth: Good, good.Leela: Pass the blowhole.Amy: Can I have a fluke?Hermes: Hey, quit hogging the bottle-nose.Farnsworth: Toss me the speech centre of the brain!

that may not be true, you only hear about the ones that were playfully pushing humans toward shore. you didn't hear about the other 70% of times they playfully pushed a screaming human into the open sea to drown.

To be more accurate, there were multiple Auschwitzes, and I was talking about the one where, when it was in full operation, no arbitrarily high amount of intelligence would have saved you beyond some point. In matters of survival, there simply are unsolvable situations. The OP saying that "dolphins are smart" was being facetious.

The ability to do so was also limited - not every Jew is an Einstein, and many countries had restrictive immigration policies in that time period (e.g. US had a quota system under the "National Origins Formula" in that time period, and Australia restricted immigration to whites).

It should also be noted that the restriction on Jewish rights under the Nazis was also gradual. Early on, many people felt, not unreasonably so, that the risk and expenses inherent in a move (especially overseas) far outweigh the inconveniences. By the time the full extent of the danger was realized, they were already significantly curtailed in their ability to move. Even so, in 1938, there was an international conference [wikipedia.org] devoted to the question of Jewish immigration from Nazi Germany, and Hitler himself said that he'd be happy to get rid of any Jews willing to leave so long as some other country is willing to take them. All other Western countries have declined, some in quite racist terms - e.g. Australian representative saying that "as we have no real racial problem, we are not desirous of importing one". The only country that extended an invitation to a considerable number of refugees was Dominican Republic, and that, ironically, was because Trujillo was trying to "whiten" the population of the country, and considered Jews as white for that purpose.

Then, of course, only some places proved to be safe to flee to, like US or UK. But who in 1938, much less 1933, would expect that France - the same France that was part of the winning coalition of WW1, and contributed significantly to German defeat - could not hold its own? At the same time it was a more attractive destination for German Jews, seeing how it is an adjacent country, making the move logistics easier.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a dolphin is demonstrably smarter than a chicken and because of that people feel it is more likely to experience pain and suffering during this "fishing".

Do pigs fight the way deer do? Because deer are the most pointlessly violent animals I've ever seen (outside, arguably, humans). If there are two bucks and eight does in an area, the two bucks will fight for all eight. The loser will be horribly injured, maimed possibly to the point of death. The winner will also be injured, and will be so exhausted that he will mate with just one doe before collapsing. The other seven does are SOL.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that a dolphin is demonstrably smarter than a chicken and because of that people feel it is more likely to experience pain and suffering during this "fishing".Not a personal opinion of mine, just one hypothesis for the reaction.

I noticed that out of the 3 choices you picked the chicken. The "demonstrably smarter" doesn't really hold very well whenyou compare dolphin to pig instead. A pig is right up there probably falling somewhere above dog and below dolphin.I like pork but I still think it is an important debate. Would farm-raised dolphins be acceptable? If not, why not?Why is eating dogs and horses frowned upon in alot of areas? Should we let animals live out their natural lives incomfort before harvesting them? What criteria do we as a society use to decide what should and should not be be eatenand when and how it is humane to harvest it?

Yes, dolphins are much smarter than cows or pigs. They have advanced abstract thinking, language skills, and social structure. They also share a reciprocal recognition of intelligence with humans, and come to visit and view humans in boats or on beaches in a similar way to how humans will be excited to see a dolphin.

A dolphin might even save you from a shark, is a wild pig going to save you from anything? Is a wild pig going to look you in the eye, recognize your intelligence, and respect you? What about an

Yes, dolphins are cuter than cows and pigs... is harvesting one worse than the other?

How many million cows are slaughtered every year? How many pigs? How many chickens?

This sounds like one set of animals has better PR than another.

If we had dolphin farms with millions of animals, then maybe your argument would me more valid. But I guess the point is that dolphin farms just wouldn't work. There are some animals like pigs and cows that can be herded and bred easily -- they hardly try to escape, and they reproduce in captivity easily and in large numbers. You can basically just catch a few of them in the wild and build a fence around them, and provide food and water, and they'll be content until the day you kill them. So we use them as

There is a distinct possibility that dolphins are not just smart animals, but actually sentient beings.Why can't we communicate with them? We can, just not very effectively. That's understandable, they are more alien to us than the average hollywood extraterrestrial. Just look at the environment they are evolved for, living in water their entire life, relying on sonar, having to return to the air layer on a regular basis. Decidedly not the same as a terrestrial life.

And here's a biggie for you. They've been trying to decipher the dolphin language for a long time. They don't know much about it, but they have found out some very interesting things. Dolphins share knowledge and instructions. They also gossip. Of course, to gossip you need individual names to reference the individual you are talking about. They do. They've clearly tracked unique sound identifiers that are apparently being used with regards to specific individuals, in other words, personal names.When was the last time you heard about pigs sharing instructions verbally or using personal names?

Is it right to eat another sentient being? Most people would say no.It's part of the reason why they wanted to study E.T. and not BBQ him.

I'm not so sure about cows. They may be highly intelligent, but they don't show it - they have been selectively bred to be quite passive and docile, for easier handling. Content to just stand around in a field, eating grass and remaining quite unresponsive to the world.

I would suggest that you are mistaken about cows. (I grew up on a farm and live in farm country.) When cows are very old or sick or are in a small pen, they just stand around, because they don't have much choice. But when they are young and have access to wider pasture, they wander around and explore their world. It's true they spend a bunch of time grazing, but they also don't miss a chance to ogle anything unusual. For example, a turtle walking through a cow field will often capture the attention of the herd, which will follow it (cautiously, it might be dangerous!) on its way through.

But really, the discussion of the morality of eating animals is a slippery slope to veganism. If you like flesh for dinner, you just have to get over it. Obviously (for Westerners, at least), primates are out. But there's a long distance between primates and cows. And I wonder why it's OK to eat pork but not dolphin, pigs are possibly the smartest "farm animal", known to be quite intelligent.

By the way, horse meat is delicious. In the 70's, due to certain economic factors effecting feed

News flash. Animals that are shown to be useful as working animals are generally perceived as non-food animals. When working animals can no longer work or keeping them is too expensive for their return they will be discarded.

Normal, mentally-healthy humans have a lot of empathy - otherwise we're psychopaths. Sure, the amount of empathy varies - mainly as a function of whether the animal in question tends to act human-like. We should embrace this, not cynically write it off - empathy *IS* humanity.

Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat, concerned how the animal died, and of course what kind of animal it was. This is basically orthogonal to issues of environmental or ecological impact.

"Yes, that also means that anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat"

Empathy clashes with survivalist instinct. I can gnaw on the bones of a cow and feel empathy for it, but that doesn't mean im going to stop eating meat. At the base level, our brains see nothing wrong with killing these animals for food. We are the stronger species, we win. Empathy is evolutionarily expensive.

I don't think anyone who is intelligent and reflective will be uncomfortable with eating meat. While I do agree that there is a part of humanity who is not really reflective, I do think that somebody intelligent can reach the conclusion that: while we should work towards reducing suffering on other animals (regardless of animal), and preferably skip the animal (as a being) part altogether (and thus grow the muscle tissue directly, as long as it keeps a good taste, of course), the benefits (it tastes good, i

This is a nerd site, not a tech site. Non-human intelligence, sentience, and the rights of those possessing it seems like a reasonably nerdy subject to me. Plenty of sci-fi books and shows have examined those themes.

The Japanese consider dolphin meat to be a delicacy and serve it in their high priced restaurants. See if any of those restaurants are used to cater/host sales conferences or other such bashes of Japanese brand names. Then just publicize the info. Headlines like "Tonda Corp or Hoyota Motors hosts its sales kick off conference with dolphin meat serving restaurant" in US Market will have some salutary effect. If big name players stop supporting restaurants serving marine mammal meat the market will be greatly diminished. Hopefully.

Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline/s

I don't see evidence of bias in the word choice. "Slaughter" is the normal English word to describe the killing of animals for food. Pigs and cows are "slaughtered" routinely, in buildings clearly labelled as "slaughterhouses."

I agree, "slaughter" should not have been used in the headline. Considering the intelligence of dolphins compared to cows, pigs, chickens, or fish, "murder" or "massacre" would have been more appropriate terms.

If you see the horror of slaughter, then perhaps you are closer than you realize to seeing that we should only slaughter other animals when we must, and not casually. There are too many humans for that, we will slaughter the whole world.

More importantly for/. how is this news for nerds? Is Dice this intent on turning Slashdot into a political discussion site for people who "like technology"?

Slashdot doesn't really have "glory days", but I'd prefer the goatse trolls and page wideners and GNAA trolls of old - all of whom could at least be modded down - to blatant click-trolling in the story submissions.

Not a biased piece at all. Never would have thought so with ''slaughter'' in the headline/s

Without commenting on the bias, what word should they use? (I'm assuming that's/sarcasm at the end there)

The dolphins will be killed for meat. The word for killing animals for food is "slaughter". In fact, using that word makes it very clear that they are just animals: the reason it's a strong word when used about human violence is that its meaning then becomes "killed like mere animals".

Definition of murder is killing another of the same species. Since dolphins are not human, it's not murder if a human does it.

Summary didn't say whether bottlenose dolphins are rare or endangered. If they are, they should be protected from fishermen. Otherwise I don't see a problem with harvesting a small percentage for their meat.

It depends on what you base your ethics around. You have options. 1) There is a universal right/wrong dictated by God. 2) What is good for humanity as a whole is right. 3) What is good for me personally is right. 4) What is good for intelligent life is right. 5) What is natural is right. 6) What feels good is right. 7)Nothing is right/wrong If you don't decide what your ethics are based on then how can you decide what is logical???? If you believe #2 then killing dolphins is ok. If you believe #1 then you s

Three things:1. All of your examples included humans, this story isn't about humans. It's about dolphins. (Also, how is this Tech news at all?)2. Even if our morals do change to include all animals in the category of "no eating", that time is not now. If people look back in horror at this, so what? I'm not them, they're not me.3. Kind of related to #2: Animals will continue eating other animals (and I would like to point out that none of your examples occur to the general animal populace either, strange dis